Goss V Lopez

What is the significance for today's schools?

Ensures a fair and proper process when dealing with a student's reputation which could be damaged . Students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door". Students are entitled to a due process hearing if facing a long-term suspension or expulsion. Procedures required prior to a suspension for educators and administration

Who was the original Defendant?

Norval Goss

What was the court's ruling?

On January 22, 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, public-school students facing suspensions are entitled to notice and a hearing.

What was the defendant's argument

There was no Ohio law and it wasn't written in the Columbus Public Schools' administrative guidelines about having a hearing before being suspended.

What was the court's reasoning?

They decided that principals can't suspend students without letting them have a chance to defend themselves. This is because when a student gets suspended, it can affect the students' future in regards to employment and academic opportunities.

What was the issue that the court had to decide?

Did the school's procedures of suspending students without prior hearing violate the students' procedural due process?

Who was the original Plaintiff

Dwight Lopez

What was the situation that brought about the lawsuit?

Dwight Lopez and eight other students were suspended without a prior hearing. They brought a class action seeking inductive and declaratory relief. The district court determined that suspending the students without a prior hearing violated their procedural due process rights and eventually the defendant school officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court

What was the significance at the time?

Was seen as a major win for student's rights Some students believed they would now be protected more Although the ruling does not really protect students anymore than before, it gives them more of a fair approach when dealing with possible suspension and expulsion.

Was there dissent?

With a narrow 5-4 decision, there were still four supreme court justices who disagreed with the decision.

What was the plaintiff's argument?

claimed that not getting a hearing before getting suspended or expelled, was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, which requires, before punishment is taken place, they were supposed to receive prior notice and an opportunity to be heard and defend themselves.